Posted
by
ScuttleMonkeyon Monday January 14, 2008 @02:58PM
from the its-got-what-plants-crave dept.

With the elections continually in the news there is constant discourse on what each candidate has done or will do. However, rarely do people get the chance to say what they would do. Here is your chance, you have been elected President of the US (god help us all), what items go to the head of the class and how would you handle them?

While I cannot speak for him, I doubt the grandfather is referring to that.

Ron Paul supports opposing immigration with force which is morally unacceptable. Moreover, he does so in a particulary despisable way, implying that "breaking the law" is intrisically evil, invoking concepts of collective responsibility, etc.

There's a very un-sane cult of personality around Ron Paul. By tying good ideas and bad ideas into a person the good ideas will definitely suffer by association.

Ugh, enough. I'm not a huge fan of Ron Paul myself, but "oppose immigration with force" is misleading, at best. It's illegal immigration he's against, and quite frankly, I agree with him. There's nothing wrong with having a process to get into this country and become a citizen.

Thanks for making my point. Ron Paul's stance on immigration has been breeding the worst kind of legal positivism.
Illegal immigration is illegal because the federal government decided it was. Just because the fed govt says something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral. No amount of bold or italic on the word "illegal" is going to change that.
And why the hell can't Ron Paul fans understand that immigration != naturalization. Who said anything about becoming a citizen ?

I don't really see that I'm making your point. Laws also don't always reflect morality or right and wrong. Every country has proceedures for immigration and there's not wrong with having them. People that come into the country for visits are refered to as expatriats, not immigrants. Good god..

So you're going to argue that people should come and go to the US as they please? Sorry, I am for minimal government, and not even I would go that far.

Self defense. First rule of natural law is not just keeping your rights intact, but it is also about survival. You do not have to wait to be attacked to attack so long as their is a credible threat to your survival. Doing away with any form of organized defense and ignoring the truth that geographical dominance is integral to being able to defend yourself against large scale threats such as war or invasion (even peacable) is suicide.

In other words our government is presumably our mechanism by which we secure protection of our rights. (Granted, this is changing and badly so, but that is another matter.) One requirement for this to happen is that we be able to defend ourselves. Now, it's nice to imagine that a bunch of independent and scattered people living on their land in an Anarcho-Capitalist utopia could do this, but I don't buy it. Once a large enough group of people who don't hold to your ideals have moved in and they have sufficient numbers and are scattered through your 'nation' and they decide to change things, you don't have a say anymore. Let alone what happens if you face an actual invasion by an organized army when you've gotten rid of such things in pursuit of utopia.

I'll embrace concepts like Anarcho-Capitalism and borderless states when technology exists that allows a man to be an island onto himself. When I can guard myself and my plot of land against an organized force many, many times more massive and well funded. Until that time comes and geographical mastery is no longer an aspect of armed conflict, I'll live with nation states protecting their borders as a necessity to survival.

I believe that philosophy exists to serve man, not vice-versa. Natural Law can lead us to a much better place the Positivism. But like all abstractions, it leaks. This is one place where it leaks. Getting rid of borders, at least in todays world (and maybe forever), leads to likely death and slavery. If most of the world embraced the ideals of Natural Law then it wouldn't be an issue. But it doesn't and it is. Allowing yourself to be surrounded and intersected many times over by people who think Natural Law is a bunch of BS or who have never even ran into the concept before and then expecting they will leave you alone instead of forcing their own philosophy on you is naive.

In short, I'll not embrace a philosohy to an extent that it leads to my destruction. I am not a zealot willing to martyr myself for the cause. In any event, I do believe that an argument can be made with Natural Law that when faced with credible threat, seizing the means to defend yourself is justified. Borders are a regrettable necessity. Maybe one day they won't be.

Alright smart ass... If Ron Paul is such a racist, where are Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and all of the other civil rights leaders who love national attention? How come all of the people throwing accusations at Ron Paul are white, tie wearing, political types? How come the strongest attack is coming from The New Republic, a neo-conservative online magazine? Why is it that even Wolff Blitzer on CNN said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "You're right Ron Paul, I've known you for a while now and those newsletters really don't sound like your words. I've never heard you say anything like that."?? Yet despite that, why did CNN then turn around and on the Anderson Cooper show, only repeat the allegation and out of 5+ minutes worth of quotable material from Ron Paul, why did they only use the few seconds worth of him saying that he didn't write the letters surrounded by a bunch of contextual spin to imply that his denial makes him guilty?

The charges are baseless bullshit. The South Carolina primary is coming up. It is being touted as the "indicator of the black vote". Ron Paul has more support among the African American community than any other Republican candidate. It's telling that the information is coming out right now.

Of course you posted AC. You're a worthless chicken shit who can't even associate himself with the slander that you're throwing around. Go fuck yourself.

So you say his newsletters were forged for him and signed by his subordinates for the last 20 years without him even reading them? Is that how he plans to run America? Maybe he can hire his Stormfront friends to run domestic policy for him, and sign the bills in his name.

If you dig into the issue a little bit more you will realize that the remarks were made during a very short period of time, spanning maybe a year or two. According to what Paul has said, that was a time of transition in the newsletter and he wasn't at all involved in the day to day operations. They had to go all the way back to 1996 to dig up dirt, and it wasn't even new dirt, it was rehashed old dirt. Like I said, if it's such a big deal, where are Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton? Look at it this way, do you think that Jimmy Dean personally inspects all of the sausage that goes out under his name? Maybe Sara Lee really comes up with all of the recipes for her desserts too.

Over the last couple of years I've heard all sorts of main stream candidates claim to not have read the intelligence reports before voting to go into Iraq. I've heard candidates claim to have not read the PATRIOT Act before voting for it. What's the big deal about some newsletters? You're a complete tool if you let this bias you against Ron Paul. He's the only candidate from both parties who has any clue about what is going on with the economy and our foreign policy. He is the only candidate out there who is being honest with the American people. He is on the record numerous times talking about how the War on Drugs unfairly targets minorities. His record speaks for itself.

What's the big deal about some newsletters? You're a complete tool if you let this bias you against Ron Paul.

It's yet another sign that Ron Paul is not discriminating enough in who he chooses to associate himself with. A president doesn't rule alone: an administration is run, by and large, by the advisers and cabinet members a president surrounds himself with. I don't like the people who surround Ron Paul.

That would be wrong. Ron Paul doesn't associate with Stormfront, firstly; The New York Times was forced to publish a retraction on that claim when it was disproven. Secondly, you're pretending that a single incident was extended over a period of decades. In fact, Paul dismissed the editors involved, directly upon being informed of the objectionable content.

If Ron Paul is such a racist, where are Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and all of the other civil rights leaders who love national attention? How come all of the people throwing accusations at Ron Paul are white, tie wearing, political types?

Keeping their powder dry.
In the game-theoretical match being played out, RP only becomes valuable to the left if they can succeed in getting him the nomination.
If RP gets the nomination, stand by for Jesse and Al to come at you all ahead flank-3, main engines in battle-override.

Shrub is an authentic war coward (daddy may have been near danger but Bush wasn't even present for his entire term of service)

actually, Bush I was a WW2 pilot. he flew a TBF bomber on some very dangerous missions over Japanese occupied islands, and was shot down. in fact, one (perhaps both, I don't recall) of his crew was killed on the mission. and when he splashed down, he was in japanese controlled waters and was in very real danger of being captured, tortured and killed. I'd say he was more than "near" danger.

the difference between between W and Kerry was this: kerry made his wartime service an issue. period. he made it an issue as to his leadership, judgement, etc. and, it wasn't his service, but his anti-war activities that so angered his fellow veterans.

I'm not a fan of W: his record spending, amnesty, and federalization of damn near everything, plus his gross mismanagement of the Iraq campaign (notice I didn't say Iraq war, which would be like saying the African War or the French War when talking about WW2. there was an African campaign, a Western Campaign, etc. Iraq is one campaign in a very long war we've been in for many many years.). however, he did not make his service an issue in 2000 or 2004.

1. Quickly end the war.2. Limit military spending to 3 times any other country. (Saving ~428 billion a year.)3. Fiber to the home. Every home.4. Remove the income limit on SS / Medicare taxes. (It's the #1 reason why the middle class pay a higher tax rate than the super rich and the reason SS is having trouble in the first place.)5. Invest in proven solar / wind systems that are close to the break even point. (EX: Solar hot water systems and wind farms.)6. Fund mass transit.7. Limited universal healthcare (90% coverage up to 10k per person per year.)8. Increased regulation of the home lending market.9. Limit maximum APR on any form of lending to 15% over inflation so credit card's are limited to around 17.5% APR / year.10. Fund ITER and other large science projects.

Who am I supposed to believe - you, or the NAACP president who has known Paul for 20 years? Tough one there, but I think I'll choose the latter.

It's unfortunate that RP allowed his name to be used for such drivel. He should have paid more attention to what people were writing. But that doesn't give you any license to continue smearing him when he has publicly repudiated those views many times.

The race card is almost always played by people who wish to short circuit debate on genuine issues and cut straight to an emotional response designed to override logic and reason when frankly, there are much more important issues at stake in this next election. The race issue in our society has already been well addressed and it has been for at least a decade now if not longer. In my own experience it is rare to uncover the types of institutionalized discriminations that used to be part of the system and if you do experience that sort of discrimination then you have adequate methods of redress and relief via the courts. If you are trying to eliminate all bigotry then you are truly wasting your time. The test of a free society with free speech is the allowance of speech that we may disagree with or which represents a minority point of view. Discrimination is one thing, but free speech, even bigoted speech, should be answered with speech, not banned out of hand. Kicking off one's campaign at Bob Jones U or referring to 'states rights' does not make one a racist, one can speak to groups, even groups with values you don't agree with, without becoming part of that group or endorsing their message. In fact, there may be many groups which support a candidate or run ads for a candidate, but that does not mean that the candidate endorses or is even connected with those groups. Why do you think that candidates generally include the line, "I am candidate name and I approve of this message." in their ads? People should be more careful about labeling someone a racist, that is a serious charge and it is, more often than not, unfounded. Ron Paul is NOT a racist.

Why do you think that candidates generally include the line, "I am candidate name and I approve of this message." in their ads?

Because it is a legal requirement that they do so. mcCain Feingold introduced that requirement to stop the practice of anonymous attack ads.

Discrimination is one thing, but free speech, even bigoted speech, should be answered with speech, not banned out of hand. Kicking off one's campaign at Bob Jones U or referring to 'states rights' does not make one a racist, one can speak to

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

Let's talk for a moment about "fairness". A person doing hot tar roofing earns $9 an hour. Tiger Woods earns $171 a minute for playing golf. Stephen Spielberg earns $632 a minute. Paris Hilton is set for life for doing absolutely nothing of value. Is that a fair rewarding of labor?

We live in a (mostly) free market economy, and that's generally a good thing. It means that we pay for goods what they're worth. It means we strive to reduce subsidy and get mad when we see it in some form or another. It tends to lead to optimal use of resources. All of this is great, except that it treats people just like another good. The hot tar worker is like sand, available on the cheap, while Tiger Woods and Spielberg are like gold. They're rare, so the market pays more for them, exponentially more, obscenely more. Wages in a free market economy are naturally distributed along an "L" curve. This isn't "fair" in terms of the amount of labor people put in (or even how "smart" they are, or how much risk they were willing to take), but the free market doesn't care about "fairness". It doesn't care about anything. To it, people are just goods.

Now, while wages may be distributed exponentially, human needs are not. A poor person, buying necessities, has no money left over for luxury. A wealthy person simply cannot buy enough necessities to even dent their luxury budget. And if they did buy necessities for other people, that would be "charitable giving". Our income tax is designed to approximate a tax on luxury; the poor, being unable to spend much on luxury, pay the lowest rate, while the wealthy, unable to spend a significant portion on necessity, pay a luxury rate. And if they give to charity, it's deductable.

Now, one might argue that a sales tax that directly taxes luxury would be more equitable than an income tax. I'd agree. The problems, however, come in the implementation. Is a $0.30 cent head of cabbage luxury? I doubt anyone would argue that. Okay -- how about a $1.50 pack of buttom mushrooms? A $5.00 pack of Shiitakes? A $60 pack of truffles? How about a beat-up 86 Olds? A 2001 Saturn? A 2007 Prius? A 2008 Lexus? When you look at the big picture, you can't classify the level of luxury based on the category of an object; it really just doesn't work. Sure, some things lend themselves better to luxury taxes -- groceries having no base level of taxation, jewelry having a high level, and so on -- but you can't capture the extreme level of variation within a given field. Hence, the income tax, having brackets for different income levels, fills in the gaps.

Taxing luxury spending higher than necessity spending is a lot more "fair" than treating people's labor the same way you'd treat a market price for sand versus gold. Flatting out the "L" curve is a lot more "fair" than leaving it in tact. Now, people working harder, taking risks, getting educated, and generally making themselves into the "gold" that the market wants *should* be rewarded. It's only "fair". But it's hard to say that, say, Bill Gates deserves tens of thousands of times the level of reward as a hot tar roofer; it's hard to call that "fairness".

As for the implications on the economy, people need rewards. Without reward, there's little incentive to improve, little incentive to work harder, little incentive to become that "gold" that the market wants. On the other hand, rewards several tens of thousands of times a hot tar roofer's wage distinctly are *not* required. Let's look at history. Anyone here know what our top income tax brackets were doing our nation's biggest boom time (the end of WWII to the late 1960s)? ~80-90%. We had this staggering level of taxation of the top rungs during this time, and yet the economy took off. Now, most of the credit to our boom belongs to the US being the main undamaged producer of goods after the war. But it's hard to argue that such taxation was some significant impediment. While I wouldn't argue for such extreme bracketting of taxation, in general, I feel the case for bracketted income taxes in terms of fairness is quite solid.

You leave out an important point. The roof taring guy only benefits one person/family/business at a time. Obviously he should be paid less than someone like Tiger Woods who benefits thousands of fans per tournament. Same thing with Spielberg, he benefits millions with his movies. And I don't know what Paris makes, but she entertains more people than the roofer, and besides that, her family benefited a lot of people with their hotels. Basically, a free market helps those who are efficient (benefit the most people) at the cost of the less efficient (benefit one person at a time). Also, these efficient producers pay more taxes in absolute terms than their less efficient counterpart. It's hard to say the roofer isn't being rewarded fairly.
Calling entertainment or anything else a luxury doesn't change its benefit. Besides, where should we draw the line? Should we call everything other than food or shelter a luxury? Should high quality/priced food then be a luxury? What about big houses? Or pools? Cars? Maybe everything other than a cardboard box and a bowl of rice should be considered a luxury? Point is, luxury good create wealth just as much as necessities. Would the farmer really care about feeding more than his family if he had nothing to buy with his income?

Your whole post seems to be based on the faulty labor theory of value... which would make sense, except that value is subjective [wikipedia.org]. Any random person doesn't necessarily deserve Bill Gates' or Paris Hilton's money any more than they do. Economics isn't a zero sum game. It doesn't matter how rich someone is... if people are free to make their own opportunities, that is about as fair as you can get.

"Abolish" is not in the realm of the possible.
Now, one could start an education campaign to build popular support for weening ourselves off the federal nanny-state opium. Say that around 2020, all of the services where the federal government knows too much about individual citizens (SSA, IRS, Medi-x) are completely delegated to the states, and they have between now and then to absorb the records, arrange for staffing, and implement the policies.
Of course, such a net increase in civic responsibility would

The notion here is to create a simpler tax system that does not require the IRS as we know it today. No reasonable person is proposing eliminating all collection of Federal taxes and, hence, some infrastructure to collect those would of course be needed.

As far as subsidized college loans is concerned (which really has little to do with the IRS)... The free and easy access to student aid is a vicious cycle -- the colleges just raise their tuition to match the available money, making it harder and harder for students who don't quite qualify for aid to get an advanced education. If someone needs a loan for college, let them go out and get one -- let the market decide if pursuing a degree in Ancient Interpretive Literature is likely to result in enough income that the student can pay back the loan. It's not my responsibility as a taxpayer in State X to fund the hobby of another person in State Y. The Feds could perhaps, via the power of the interstate commerce clause, have a role in making the student loan market more viable by making sure that a student can't just jump across the state border to avoid repaying a student loan (existing laws probably deal with this fine but might need some changes).

2. Abolish the Federal Reserve... response

Meddling in interest rates, for example, creates it's own set of problems. Recessions are inevitable and not necessarily the worst thing - ask someone who has just lost all the equity (and retirement nest egg) in their house and just got foreclosed on if they could care less if we are not in a recession (yet)? Let the market work it out - yes, it may be volatile at times, but the "propping up" of the system by the Feds results in big bubbles instead of more little ones that burst early. We have a global economy now -- the Fed really can't change that and will be increasingly less able to achieve their goals anyway.

3. Abolish the Department of Education... response

Funny, I've never heard the Governor of a state say "We here in Hickstate are too stoopid to figure out how to lurn our kids - we need the Feds to tell us this". Instead it sounds more like "We here in Hickstate want money forcibly extracted from any state but Hickstate to help pay to educate our kids". States are free to band together to share R&D costs of education if they wish to, the Feds are not needed for that and the Constitution doesn't give them the power to IMHO.

4. Abolish the FCC... response

Ah, finally something we agree at least partially on -- the allocation of frequencies and technical broadcasting standards seems to fall well within the scope of the interstate commerce clause as RF doesn't respect state boundaries.

5. Abolish social security... response

Of course the sunsetting of Social Security will require a staged process so those that have put money into the plan will receive partial benefits and those that are already retired will continue to receive benefits until death. Yes, since the plan is basically bankrupt, there will be some combination of life support (covering shortfalls with general taxation) and benefit reductions during the phase out -- but not as bad if we continue the ponzi scheme for another 30 years. Not pleasant, but better to amputate the gangrenous lower leg now than to wait for the infection to spread up into the torso and internal organs - we infected ourselves with this disease decades ago and our attempts at fighting the infection have failed so drastic action is now needed.

6. Abolish medicare... response

Phasing out Medicare would need to be done much the same way as phasing out Social Security would be done -- in a staged fashion. As far as state-to-state disparity - that's life. People are free to migrate from one state to another state to seek a better life and have historically done so in the Unite

Typical American response, indicating that the poster clearly doesn't believe that he will ever be "some poor guy". He will never become too sick or injured to work. He will never have his business fold beneath him, or his employer collapse above him. If the unwashed masses need more assistance than the wealthy see fit to voluntarily give [foundationcenter.org], then they are leeches.

1) Straighten out the economy. Oil prices, housing slump, and the mess that is the Federal Banking Commission.
2) Scale back the size of the Federal Government and lower taxes accordingly.
3) Get a kick-ass foreign relations team into the embassies and capitals to repair our good name.

Absolute number one thing, first day on the job: get a blowjob from a cuter intern than Monica, then post pics of it on MySpace. You know, just to get that out of the way.

You americans are so tediously moralistic, the French have their guy on an 'incentive' program. The more manifesto promises he makes, the more 'rewards'. Mitterand had four mistresses.

I don't qualify under current law, but the first thing I would do is to look at how to make the current US problem in Iraq someone else's problem. Over the past five years Iraq has all but destroyed the US army. Whose army do we most want to destroy most (or care least about)? That would be Iran. So the US says to Iran 'your problem now', withdraw to Kuwait, see whether Iran prefers to have a festering civil war on its border or gets sucked in.

Second foreign policy position: Cuba. Eliminate all sanctions with immediate effect. They have not worked in 40 years and it is obvious that they never will. It is equally obvious that the Cuban political system can hardly survive if there is a massive influx of capitalist spending. Close Gitmo while we are at it and sign a retroactive extradition treaty. Let those who committed torture face a criminal system that is no worse than the one they created themselves.

Third position: Al Zawahiri and Bin Laden get a slotting. The US needs to withdraw from lost and irrelevant conflicts to concentrate resources on the conflicts that matter. Al Zawahiri has now had a major role in the murder of two US-friendly world leaders (Sadat, Bhutto). He cannot be allowed to survive. These problems cannot be dealt with by simply creating a bigger military, do that and some idiot neocons will come along and decide to use it for their own pet purposes.

Fourth: halt the deficit spending program. Congress will not lower spending, under the GOP earmarks and spending exploded under the Democrats the difference is that spending is rising less quickly. The deficits are causing interest rates to soar, they are tipping the country into recession. The only way to reduce the deficit is for the country to live within its means and raise revenues. So unless you believe in the tax fairy the choice is between raising taxes and crashing the economy. Don't wait for the Bush tax cuts to expire, repeal them immediately and institute a 2% war tax. Time to remind people that deficit spending is merely a deferred tax rise.

Fifth: comprehensive review of earmark projects, no-bid contracts and other potential graft. It appears that Haliburton and Blackwater owe the government rather a lot of money, we would like it back. Also Alaska can whistle if they think they are getting the idiot Stephens bridge to nowhere.

Sixth: Implement measures to protect the Internet economy against Internet crime and the risk that terrorists use the Internet for fundraising. (Full program described in The dotCrime Manifesto [blogspot.com].

The deficits are causing interest rates to soar, they are tipping the country into recession

US interest rates are like what? 4-6% ? hardly what I call soaring. One of the main reasons the usa is heading for a recession is that the interest rates were/are so low, they made ninja (no income, no job, no assets) loans too hard for financial institutions to resist and now they're stuck with the mess.

Please note that I would only cut the budget on Nasa for the first 2 years, then I would ramp it up past 100B, if we don't get our asses in space and start strip mining other planetoids and asteroids, we're ALL in bigger trouble than deficit spending. In reality, a good chunk of the defense budget would go to NASA as well.Social Security: 600B (Mandatory)Defense: 250BUniversal Health Care as part of Health and Human Services : 700B (Mandatory)Other Mandatory: 350B (a whole bunch of tiny, popular things. A

"basically shady mortgage brokers forged lending documents and got people into homes they never should have"

That is too narrow in the blame. The problem WAS shady brokers, but it was also, shady lenders. My wife worked for a couple of different direct lenders during the boom, and the number of forgeries that went on at the lenders themselves were amazing. The lenders were giving loans that they knew the borrowers could not afford. They were just counting on the borrower refinancing later when the hou

If I was president,I'd get elected on Friday, assassinated on Saturday,and buried on Sunday.

If I was president...If I was president

An old man told me, instead of spending billions on the war,we can use some of that money, in the ghetto.I know some so poor, they use the spring as the shower,when screaming "fight the power".That's when the vulture devoured

[chorus]If I was president,I'd get elected on Friday, assasinated on Saturday,and buried on Sunday.

If I was president...If I was president...If I was president...If I was president

But the radio won't play this.They call this rebel music.How can you refuse it, children of moses?

[chorus]If I was president,I'd get elected on Friday, assassinated on Saturday,and buried on Sunday.

If I was president...If i was president

Tell the children the truth, the truth.Christopher Columbus didn't discover America.Tell them the truth.The truthYEAH! Tell them about Marcus Garvey.The truth YEAH! The truth.Tell them about Martin Luther King.Tell them the truth.The Truth.Tell them about JFK

If I was President[chorus]If I was president,I'd get elected on Friday, assassinated on Saturday,and buried on Sunday.

The president can only pardon people who have been convicted of violating federal laws. Since most people in prision for drug posession were charged under state drug laws, there wouldn't be anything you could do about it.

disclaimer: I'm European, haven't been to the US and given the circumstances will not travel there for the forseeable future.

"Agreed. Then I'd pardon everyone in jail for simple possession."

Why not go several steps further and end the war on drugs altogether? Change it to a commercial model where distribution is legalized and FDA controlled. Everyone who wants to buy/use has to follow a course much like drivers-ed and get a license to use, perhaps even per-substance and perhaps with a practical exam (using under supervision) to make sure there are no adverse reactions? The 'license' would hold biometric data, only to make sure it's the original holder that is buying and you could put quota on it.

Such a system would yield major advantages for everyone:- Educate users. I'm a firm believer in education as a way to reduce harm and raise awareness.- take away income from criminals and put it into the taxable real economy.- use said income to mitigate medical and social consequences of (a)buse- get rid of a lot of 'criminals' (small time dealers are usually opportunity criminals. no opportunity, no criminals.)- not throwing away a lot of human potential over petty crime like posession or use- police would have a lot of capacity to battle drugsrelated crime like theft, robbery, DUI, etc. as well as check the fringes like reselling to people without a license (meaning you get a fine and forfeit your license to buy)

After everyone has come to terms with that, perhaps you can put alcohol and tobacco in the same system as they are (hard)drugs themselves.

Will this end all problems? No. There will always be people trying to abuse the system for higher gain. There will always be addicts and their related problems. Issues with home-producers (meth labs, etc., not home growers of pot.) Lots more that I'm too tired to think of right now.

Anyway, 'The State' is harming users that get caught a lot more than most drugs will ever do. End that and you've done at least one good thing as a president.

more disclaimers: I don't see marihuana as 'completely innocent', I think all recreational psychoactive substances should only be available to people over the age of 18. Taxes should be imposed in relation to the cost to society.

You are aware this would mean that the U.S. government would completely collapse within a year, as you vetoed every budget, right? I'm sure you're also aware that the collapses U.S. government would promptly send the U.S. into an economic collapse, as the dollar became almost completely worthless and people began to starve and riot?

Don't worry, I suspect you wouldn't have long to worry about it anyway, before your impeachment.

First: Honestly, I would do my best to remove our military presence from Iraq (and yes, I know this would probably lead to civil war, but I think its going to happen anyway, just delayed while we're there).
Second: I would see if I could get the ball rolling on government insurance (socialist medicine), our privatized insurance system has become the bane of the under and uninsured people in the country, particularly children in those 2 categories.

But there is a sizable group of people that won't be happy until our men all have beards, and our women are wearing burkas.

What a load of crap. Show me one statement/website/whatever where ANY pseudo-legitimate group has even suggested such a thing (other than home-grown groups)?

You have completely misinterpreted what the rest of the world (not just the Islamic part) has been saying to the West. They want the West to quit meddling in their own affairs...they don't want to convert you...they don't ev

Show me one statement/website/whatever where ANY pseudo-legitimate group has even suggested such a thing

Not sure if you consider them "pseudo-legitimate", but you might try this BBC's report [bbc.co.uk] on a video statement made by Osama Bin Laden in September 2007:

The speaker tells the American public that there are two ways to end the war in Iraq: "The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you."

The second way, he continues, is to reject America's democratic system and convert to Islam.

Sure sounds like he plans to keep knocking down buildings until we all embrace his religion to me. At least, I didn't notice a "we'll leave you alone if you leave us alone" clause anywhere in his statement.

Although you have to seriously wonder if OBL (or his ilk) would have even bothered the West if the West hadn't:

Propped up the Shah in Iran

Propped up the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia

Supplied Israel with advanced weaponry

Supplied Saddam with weaponry to wage war with Iran

Our foreign policy over the past 75 years has been screwy and downright slimey at times. We like to preach democracy, but we don't hesitate to help prop up un-popular dictators who will bend to our will.

We are trying to help establish a democracy in Iraq! Damned if we do; damned if we don't.

We shouldn't ever be waging war to promote democracy. And if going into Iraq was just about "spreading freedom" - which is a laughable claim - then why aren't we "spreading freedom" to other countries in the world that are led by despots?

We shouldn't be dicking with other countries' governments at all. We shouldn't be supplying arms and money to unpopular dictators. We shouldn't be sending in tanks and bombs to unseat a government we dislike. European powers shouldn't have carved up the Middle East 150 years ago into Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc., etc. They shouldn't have created Israel after WWII. They shouldn't have carved up Eastern Europe like they did after WWI. Britain shouldn't have been such meanies over in India. France shouldn't have tried to control Indochina. The US shouldn't have forced Japan to trade and modernize back in the early 20th century.

I know I'm rambling here, but what I'm trying to say is that when one nation takes it upon themselves to direct the peoples of another nation, bad stuff is bound to happen. It might be minor bad stuff, or it might be major bad stuff. It might happen in 5 years, it might happen in 25 years, or it might happen in 100 years. But nothing good will comes of bullying other people around.

you don't NEED very many of them for it to happen. You only need... about 19 of them to knock down some buildings actually.

Of course, they didn't do that alone - they were supported by resources from a lot more people. Money, material support, communications and coordination. Reducing the number of pissed-off people does reduce the risk of terrorist attacks. No policy will eliminate them, but overthrowing elected governments to install totalitarian puppet dictators a la Iran isn't exactly calculated to wi

I would remove "In God We Trust" as the national motto, as well as removing the "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
After that, I'd put limits on advertising and marketing which are constantly being shoved in our faces. Then I'd make Network Neutrality a reality. I'd pull out troops out of Iraq. Gay marriage would be legalized at the federal level.
Basically I'd pretty much change everything.:)

I would legalize hemp for industrial uses and decriminalize marijuana. There are so many great industrial uses for hemp that it is absolutely stupid not to be using it. Marijuana is also far safer than alcohol. Other than that big one I'd probably try to come up with some sort of Peace Corp like serious public works project to take care of the infrastructure in this country. I'd also like to see a similar program setup overseas in countries that would have us. Instead of sending in troops with guns and tanks, we could send in Americans with seeds and tractors. Maybe I'm a bit too idealistic, but I have a hard time believing that we wouldn't be well received around the world if we spent as much on actually improving infrastructure and agriculture and water supplies as we spend on bombs and guns and bullets and other military expenses.

1. Kick off investigations of the crimes of the Bush administration.2. Scale down our forgein military presence (not quite to the extent Paul wants to, but significantly).3. Do everything in my power to get all of the unconstitutional legislation that has been passed in the last few years repealed (Patriot Act, MCA, etc).4. Balance the budget. I would lay down absolute ultimatums that government programs justify their existence and their tax cost to the American people, and cut anything that's not convincing. Maybe I'd even call for a vote on what programs get to stay. We would have to leave taxes at close to current for a few years and pay off our debt, though, I'm afraid.5. Not overstep the bounds of my office with signing statements, etc.

I would get the EXPERTS on topics (Economy, Warfare, Science...) to tell me what the best course of action is (multiple, independent experts for sample size (exact size from stats experts)) and then act along those lines.

3 year plan to institute a nation-wide algae based bio fuel farming and processing industry modeled after the rural farming unions and co-ops that drive our dairy industry. That is, anyone with the open land could create an algae farm with free seed algae from the gubermint, and cheap loans to build the infrastructure. Every so many days a truck from your local co-op fuel depot would pull up, siphon off your fuel and bring it to the distribution center, where the locals could then buy the fuel for their cars/trucks. Figure 250,000 fuel growing tanks, 1 acre each providing all the fuel the nation needs.

3 year plan to create thousands of small community owned pebble bed reactors situated in every army, marine, national guard and air-force armory in the nation. The reactors are small, the armories are (should be anyway) well guarded, so they do double-duty as power stations.

Once those are in place, remove the IRS and current tax law, replace with a 3% flat tax. The huge increase in GDP caused by the above two will more than offset the taxes lost through the current corrupt system.

Jail many lawyers, politicians. Use them to feed the algae from #1 above.

2) I will tax the top 5% and distribute the wealth through increased funding for basic academic research, reimburse college loans for students carrying 3.2GPA or higher, national daycare programs, and national health care programs.

3) Prosecute the supreme court justices who appointed Bush, and every person in the federal governemnt who continued to aid and abet the terrorist regime.

4) Establish a department of peace, reduce military funding, and give anyone a seat a a negotiating table so we do not have to fight them "over there" or "over here".

5) Reparations for the victims of hurrican katrina who were failed by their governments.

1) I will repeal corporate personhood.2) I will tax the top 5% and distribute the wealth through increased funding for basic academic research, reimburse college loans for students carrying 3.2GPA or higher, national daycare programs, and national health care programs.

3) Prosecute the supreme court justices who appointed Bush, and every person in the federal governemnt who continued to aid and abet the terrorist regime.

4) Establish a department of peace, reduce military funding, and give anyone a seat a a n

2) I will tax the top 5% and distribute the wealth through increased funding for basic academic research, reimburse college loans for students carrying 3.2GPA or higher, national daycare programs, and national health care programs.

Requires legislation. You can have your pet congressman introduce legislation to do so.

3) Prosecute the supreme court justices who appointed Bush, and every person in the federal governemnt who continued to

People think the President can do anything. But in fact the office of the President does not have the power to any of the things listed here, not without cooperation from other parts of the government, or in case of #3, a grand jury (which you are not allowed to stack with partisans).

Ideas for solving problems are nearly useless to a President. What a President has to do is frame problems. People have to accept that (a) a problem exists and (b) it is just the way you characterize it. Expecting to get your way on (c) [this is what we're going to do about it!] is excessively optimistic.

So, you have backtrack on your solutions to defining the problem in a way that is politically attractive and leads to the kinds of solutions you favor.

1) "I will repeal corporate personhood." -- "Corporations are using their personhood status to meddle in politics, which is not what it is for."

2) "I will tax the top 5% and distribute the wealth..." -- "The problem with giving big tax breaks to the wealthiest people is that it doesn't work like it might have in the past. In an era of globalization, putting more capital in the hands of the ultrawealthy is that it can and does go overseas to make people who compete with American workers more productive."

3) "Prosecute the supreme court justices who appointed Bush, and every person in the federal governemnt who continued to aid and abet the terrorist regime." -- "Government is acting as if it is above the law, and institutions that should be politically neutral have become tools of party and in some cases personal interests."

4) "Establish a department of peace..." -- "We're asking the taxpayers to give tons of money for national security, but we're spending it in ways that make the country less secure."

5) "Reparations for the victims of hurricane katrina who were failed by their governments." -- "It's been three years since since Katrina, and we still haven't been able to marshal an effective response. We can't wait anymore for some bureaucratic program, we need to do something immediately that will make a difference right away."

"It's not the taxpayers responsibility to fund disaster recovery efforts. A compassionate community should be able to do that without needing to have the government confiscate our property from us (in the form of taxes)."Do you really think if this was true that we'd have government? War and disaster are the two main reasons governments are created. Both, because the community cannot absorb these kinds of shocks. Who would have been the compassionate community with the ability to help fund disaster relief e

1. Use our armed forces for national defense, not the world's police2. Divert savings from needless wars into balancing the budget and paying down the debt3. Reverse laws that punish victimless crimes and legislate personal morality4. Pardon and release non-violent drug offenders to help with prison overcrowding5. Revise the tax code to bring fairness and relief to the working/middle classes

Since it doesn't look like Dr. Paul will get the nomination, vote me in 2016... if we're still here.

Every election is the same thing. Candidates with speech writers talk the talk of "at home" issues. They can almost never do anything about it because "at home" issues are mostly local issues. Outside of coming up with a way to tax more more, and going to war, Washington doesn't do much for me. When the fed cuts rates or raises them, that impacts me at home. Most of the at home issues they don't belong in anyways.

But what ever happened to thinking big. Last time we thought big was the 60's I guess and the space race. We're a large country, I want a large project. One that inspires us (try putting a price on inspiration), and that becomes a legacy for an entire generation. One whose impact will last for decades.

I would love to see some grand project. Lunar colony (not in 20 years, but like, let's start doing it now). New space vehicle. Particle accelerator bigger then anything on the drawing board today. Something. Anything that inspires us and improves the planet.

Let's see, what would I do as president? I think the speech would go a little something like this.

"Hey, folks, you know how they say there's nothing that gets an economy moving like a war? Let's consider that for a moment. We're talking about uniting the entire nation behind one goal. We're talking about reordering the economy to meet this goal, every working man and woman either directly engaging in the mission or serving in a supporting role. We train the flower of our youth, equip them with our treasure and send them thousands and thousands of miles away to foreign lands, all this effort just to drop a bomb in someone's lap. Could you imagine going to this sort of effort to give that same guy a helping hand, rebuild a house, provide a hot meal or maybe just a cold beer? It's laughable! And what a sad joke we are as a species that we feel this way.

"So, what's on the agenda for the next four years? We're going to go to war. Not any of this silly war on drugs and terror nonsense, much more effective than the war on poverty. No, we're going to war on business as usual, the way we've always been doing things. We spend $500 billion on the military and what we have to show for it is worth maybe a tenth of that number. Our nation has lost its leading role in science and industry. The solution to these problems is not just throwing money at 'em, the solution is to use that money intelligently.

"It's a simple truth that centralized organizations are among the most efficient forms of human effort we've ever seen. The Soviet Union's economy fell apart because bureaucrats in Moscow tried to make decisions on how business on the other side of the empire should be conducted. The former genius of the capitalist system was the decentralization of authority to the periphery of the economy, let the businesses make decisions on what they need to produce and how to do it. Efficient organizations succeed, inefficient ones are allowed to fail, their capital and employees and resources free to be used by more efficient enterprises. Folks, the consolidation we're seeing with today's megacorporations is simply a repeat of the Soviet folly. And the growing wasteful bureaucracy in Washington is no better.

"Government needs to concentrate on what government does best in a 21st century nation-state. Such duties include providing for the common defense, making treaties with foreign powers, providing regulation and inspection of private enterprise to ensure those organizations operate in the public interest, national health care and retirement funds, and conducting basic research in the sciences.

"Government is not to be a piggy bank for special interests to raid. It is not a cash cow to be tapped by connected contractors who have made big donations to politicians. To that end, all political campaigns will be publicly funded. Anyone money recieved from outside the election funding system will be seen as a bribe and the criminal penalties will follow from that."

That's just a few thoughts I had off the cuff. I would assume if I ever were president and tried to say something like that, I'd be taken aside into a smoke-filled room and shown that film of the Kennedy assassination, but shot from a view I've never seen before, a view that looks like it's from the Grassy Knoll. "Any questions?"*

My first act after being sworn in would be to bring all US troops home from Iraq.

My second act would be to issue a presidential pardon for all non-violent drug offenders.

My legislative priorities, assuming like-minded people have been also been elected to the House and Senate, would be:1) The end of the War on Some Drugs. The money currently spent on that would go toward drug treatment, see item 3 below.2) Repeal of the DMCA, and systematic reform of the copyright, trademark and patent laws. Copyright would be an initial term of five years, renewable for one additional term of five years, with an open format preservation requirement for the renewal. The scope of what is protected by trademark law would be substantially narrowed. Software patents would be kaput.3) A single payer comprehensive national health care plan. Neither employers, nor university presidents would be permitted access to people's medical records.4) The current tax code would be scrapped, and replaced by a simple progressive income tax with no loopholes. I am also open to using a national sales tax with a progressive, income sensitive prebate program.5) Immigrants who want to come to the US for a better life would be welcome, without quotas or limits, even if they have darker skin than me or speak a different language.6) New education standards, with a heavy emphasis on math and science. Schools receiving federal funds would be prohibited from having ID as part of the science curriculum, and would be required to have as much resources put into arts, music and such as are put into sports.

Step #1 - Get the resumes of each of the people who have the opportunity to directly influence my decisions. Get rid of the people whose resumes are not up to my standards. Well, maybe not, "get rid". Possibly just bench them.

Step #2 - Neuter the Department of Homeland Security. Start finding different places for their employees to go because I would shut them down before my term is over.

Step #3 - Address the country and read to them the Bill of Rights and first bit of the Declaration of Independence... then apologize for the lies of many of my predecessors while thanking them for creating such a stable staging ground for the next era of development of the nation.

Step #4 - Befriend the ACLU and the NRA

Step #5 - Slowly, begin to trim the fat from various auxiliary military budgets and reinvest that money in raising the quality of Intermediate, Elementary, Pre-K education/childcare. (New Teacher Initiatives, Federal bonuses for X many years as a teacher, etc.)

Step #7 - Begin swapping US troops for UN Peacekeepers (2:1) in Iraq and sponsor a system of reconstruction that will allow for schools and infrastructure over profit-focused industry. (They can do that on their own)

Step #8 - Address the UN. State that the US has been wrong on many occasions and we will often continue to be wrong. However, today, we begin to acknowledge our shortcomings and will begin the long trek to become the nation we always wanted to be.

Step #9 - Re-regulate energy companies around the nation (If you want guaranteed profit, don't expect it to be a lot).

Step #10 - Sit down with the automotive industry and tell them that I will not be covering any of their butts for any reason until they allow their engineers low-fuel-consumption automobiles to hit the production line WITH attractive exteriors.

Quick priorities:- Carbon tax that feeds R&D and subsidies to clean tech;- NASA reforms including purchases of commodity products as-delivered-to-orbit with no spec on how to get them there;- Foreign aid money governed by transparency index (Transparency International at transparency.org);- Emissions taxes that self-finance the EPA (tax all emissions and fines go to further enforcement);- Net neutrality and passenger bill-of-rights acts;- Repeal of monopoly power over broadband re: cable modems, etc.- College subsidies for U.S. citizens or foreigners that intend to locate here;- Strict enforcement of current INS laws requiring workers to show proof of employability before being allowed to work here coupled with green card lottery (worldwide, not just to Mexico);- Repeal of Patriot act provisions for search without warrents;- Redeployment of almost all U.S. troops from South Korea;- Change from a Class A to a Class B drug (legalization, under inpatient Doctor's supervision), of the Heroin addiction cure Ibogaine ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibogaine/rel=url2html-972 [slashdot.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibogaine/ >;- No Child Left Behind act changes to ease regulatory burden and channel money where its needed;- Expansion of the Peace Corps.;- Possible construction of a Trans-Alaska highway / railway that can lead to a cross-Bearing straights bridge;- Possible approval of a nuclear pebble bed reactor design and reprocessing facilities;- A balanced budget.

After reading everyone's posts, I'm worried that policies to fight climate change aren't on most (not even many!) of the lists! And this on a site that caters to the theoretically better educated portion of the population.

I can think of no issue that is larger today than global warming. At least to me, everything else seems petty and moot, especially if climate change is just going to undo in a really big way the strides made in the areas the other posters seem to care about.

I'm consistently more concerned and depressed by our lemming-like walk to the climate catastrophe cliff, but I had hoped that at least our part of the general population was aware and worried and, given the opportunity, would act in anyway they could to prevent it. If I were president, I would scale down on all the wastes of money this government currently has enacted, devote much of the money currently spent on petty projects into research and infrastructure so we can leave something behind for our kids. I would fight tooth and nail to get the corn and coal lobbies off the government's back so progress can finally be made in constructive action.

Bush has wasted so much of our time to act, why aren't we feeling the sense of urgency more widely by now?

1) Recall U.S. troops from Iraq and probably Afghanistan, and any secret troops in Iran2) Reinstitute Habeas Corpus3) Initiate investigation into war crimes on the part of previous administration officials, as well as charges of treason (The Bush administration has gone WAY beyond 'impeachable offenses')4) Release political prisoners in U.S. (of course this also includes Gitmo/Abuwhatever type places, but let's not forget people like Leonard Peltier, etc.)5) Honor existing treaties with Native American tribes.6) Appoint N.M. Governor Bill Richardson as Secretary of State, and send his ass out on a very long trip to start repairing U.S. relations abroad. I doubt this dude will be back by the end of my administration.7) Find lackeys in Congress to start legislation I suggest, such as: no Congressional payraises unless a proportional increase in the minimum wage is approved at the same time.8) Enforcement of the Constitution: try to get laws in place that forbid the kind of things W has been up to. Immediate legal penalties on politicians (including the President) if these laws are broken.9) Fix the voting machine mess; mandate a auditable paper trail.10) Fix the gerrymandering of voting districts - by either side.11) Fix the EPA, and allow states to implement stricter pollution standards (but disallow looser standards)12) Legalize, regulate, and tax the holy hell out of Marijuana.13) Fully legalize hemp, and provide incentives to switch as much cotton production as is feasible over to hemp. (better for the environment, and actually more profitable for agribusiness.)14) Legalize, regulate, and tax the holy hell out of prostitution.15) Make lobbying a felony16) Change the law so that corporations are not legal entities on a par with an actual human17) Make animal abuse a felony, and make people convicted of it tracked; they often have serial killer tendencies.18) No more subsidies to corn agribusiness19) No more subsidies to oil producers20) Much higher energy efficiency standards

9. Require application for parental certificates (the program would be known as "If you can't feed em, don't breed em". It would be based on the financial situation of the parents, as well as their mental well being and relationship status...i.e. do they constantly fight, or are they constantly in love, etc.)

Because all pregnancies are planned, right? Or are you talking about forced abortions?

"The Postal Service has different goals, obligations, and powers from private corporations. Its goals are not those of private enterprise. The most important difference is that it does not seek profits, but only to break even...."